Susan Carmack wrote:
> >It is this one-sided use of scientific evidence that I find so
> >puzzling.  Neanderthin cites epidemiological evidence that links
> >corn to cancer but ignores epidemiological evidence that links
> >red meat to cancer.
>
> Any evidence that red meat causes cancer has been conjured up by the
> 'powers that be' -food conglomerates.

As Todd said, though, some of the evidence I think we've all heard about
at one time or another is epidemiological in nature. We aren't talking
about a situation in which a cabal of grain producers sponsor a
small-scale study at an institute which they own. I'm by no means
blind to the possibility that the results from any study, at any
institution can be "purchased" by a powerful interest. But I think that
at some point the burden of proof lies on the conspiracy theorist to show
that this is in fact the case.

Also note that the "food conglomerates" can make exactly the same claim
against Neanderthin. Any evidence that corn causes cancer has been conjured up
by the 'powers that be' - the meat industry. It is well known that Bruce
Ames is in the pocket of wealthy Texas cattle men. (note: this point
was made for illustrative purposes only)

In the final analysis, your sentence makes an empirical claim. To evaluate
it, I must ask 3 questions.
 "is there any evidence for this claim?"
 "what is the evidence?"
 "how good is the evidence?"

So, what is your evidence that food conglomerates have conjured up every
piece of evidence that red meat causes cancer? Have you actually read
every study that suggests that red meat causes cancer? (I haven't even read
one.)